2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Sher Zaman Khan, Deputy Attorney-General and Muhammad Shakot, Division Superintendent, Post Services, Sialkot for Respondents. The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the respondents issued the advertisement to fill the post in question. The petitioner in obedience of the advertisement of the respondents submitted application. The petitioner appeared in the written test. She secured first position in the written test. Subsequently the petitioner appeared in the interview and she also secured first position. The respondents did not issue appointment letter to the petitioner as they received a complaint that written test and interview was not conducted transparently. The respondents issued letter dated 12-4-2003 by Divisional Superintendent Postal Service Sialkot to the petitioner to appear before the respondents for re-examination. The petitioners being aggrieved filed this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that petitioner passed the written test and interview held by the respondent and secured first position. The respondents with mala fide did not issue the appointment letter to the petitioner. The petitioner has secured a vested right after passing the examination held by the respondents. Therefore, respondents have no lawful authority to direct the petitioner for re-examination for the said post. Learned Law Officer submits that basic facts are admitted by the respondents in the report and parawise comments to the extent that petitioner secured first position in written test and interview but the respondents did not issue the appointment letter to the petitioner on the ground that they came to know through some sources that irregularities have been taken place while finalizing merit list and deserving candidates were deprived by their right by inserting the self proposed papers. Therefore, competent authority directed for re-examination for the post in question. He further submits that writ petition is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.

4. The objection of learned Deputy Attorney General that writ petition is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act has no merits as the petitioner .is not inducted in service by the respondents as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Ahmad Suleman Waris v. Dr. Naeem Akhtar (PLD 1997 SC 382). It is admitted fact that petitioner appeared in the written test and interview held by the respondents and secured first position. The respondents did not attach a single document alongwith the report and parawise comments that some irregularities were committed by the respondents at the time of holding written test and interview. Therefore, stand of the respondents in the report and parawise comments that some irregularities have taken place has no force. It is settled principle of law that respondent has to substantiate parawise comments with documents. As the respondents failed to attach a single document to show that some irregularities were committed at the time of holding the written test and interview therefore, petitioner has secured vested right in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Army Welfare' case (1992 SCMR 1652). The examination and interview was held by the respondents in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:--

1. Abdul Jabbar Maimen's case (1996 SCMR 1349).

2. Munawar Khan's case (1993 SCMR 1287).

3. Ubaid Ullah's case (PLD 1997 SC 835). This Court also considered the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed the same in Ghulam Mustafa's case (1998 PLC (C.S.) 274). In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs. The respondents are directed to issuer appointment letter to the petitioner within 15 days from today. M.H./F-182/L Petition allowed.